Hall v. Huff’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2016
2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 71st Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation · Montgomery v. Kennedy · McConnell v. Southside Independent School District · EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) whether the intervening action brings about harm different in kind from that which otherwise would have resulted from the actor’s negligence; (b) whether the intervening action or its consequences appear to be extraordinary rather than normal; (c) whether the intervening force acted independently of any situation created by the actor’s negligence or is not a normal result of such negligence; (d) whether the intervening force is due to a third person’s act or failure to act; (e) whether the intervening force is due to the act of a third person that is wrongful to the plaintiff and potentially subjects the third person to liability to the plaintiff; and (f) the degree of culpability of the wrongful act of the third person that sets in motion the intervening force.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Texas courts distinguish between a new and independent cause and a concurrent act. A concurrent act cooperates with the original act in bringing about the injury and does not cut off the liability of the original actor. A new and independent cause, sometimes referred to as a superseding cause, however, is an act or omission of a separate and independent agency that destroys the causal connection between the negligent act or omission of the defendant and the injury complained of.... An intervening cause that is reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, though, is not a new and independent cause that breaks the chain of causation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Young v. Thota“new and independent cause” is defined as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.